Recommended Posts

He wrote the curriculum and admitted he did and anyone can trace back the curriculum to his texts, articles and position papers which some of us have studied. Of course you are going to deny. What else can you do now.

Also go find out what libel means because you keep throwing it out clearly not understanding it.

Next, you are willfully ignorant. You assume I and everyone who does not support his curriculum carte blanche disagree with all of it. I never stated that and nor did Ford or anyone else.

You are so busy assuming what other people think, you don't get it. You turn all issues into black and white, for or against postulations because that is how you project your thought patterns.

You don't know what parts of the curriculum I do and do not agree with and you clearly ignore what parts I agree with and do not agree with from what I have stated.

As for libel, stating a fact is not libel. Try grasp that. You seem to have a hard time with basic facts.

Link to post

Share on other sites

No, he didn't. You made that up. If it were true, you could prove it. But you can't because it's not. That makes it libel.

Why don't you just go to sources ? There's clearly no trust between you on this so unless you get a clear cite you are just going to talk past each other.

That's why I posted my link with the quote. It was cited as a talking point and you both ignored it. It says Levin can "hardly be credited as the sole author" which you can infer "he could be credited as a part author". In which case you are both part-right part-wrong.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

No, I'm right. Wynne stated the obvious, that Deputy Ministers are not curriculum writers: “Ministers and deputy ministers do not write curriculum.... Curriculum is written by subject experts in conversation and in consultation with a wide array of people and curriculum is reviewed and written on an ongoing basis.”

it would be accurate to say he was overseeing the whole department when the curriculum was developed, but it's ridiculous to assume he was the writer. He was the Deputy Minister.

There would be writers hired for that project (probably on contract) and they would have a libel case against anyone who calls them pedophiles. The content itself is always dictated by a large development team made up of subject-area experts, which is led by a departmental project leader who specializes in that subject area. That's how it works in every province.

Link to post

Share on other sites

In regards to your second question, precisely which is why I made my point. His arguments were about what you write and when you write about gender identity choices which I am sorry doesn't require an expert. You do not need to be an expert to know how to teach tolerance and respect for people with different values. Its basic politeness and why people need a government or expert to tell them not to pick their nose at the dinner table is beyond me. Likewise with ear wax.

In regards to politics you can't get more political than the world of academia, particularly in social sciences. Its all about preconceived political opinions that then shape the focus of the theories. Its why I prefer health sciences based on objective physical explanations. I say it again to all the nurses out there. A Registered Nurse does a far better job explaining health matters than a psychologist or some shmuck like me who spent most of job with sex perverts. I like Nurses as health teachers. Nurse Sue was the best sex educator in the world precisely because she was totally neutral in her explanations. I love her model of teaching. The next was Xaviera Hollander. She actually as you know was an escort but her explanations and analysis were used all over the world in sexology faculties precisely because of her objectivity and lack of politics in what she said. Neither of these two is an academic but considered by many the two best explainers of sexual behaviour and physical anatomy. My issue is what age you switch from health science education to human relations and lifestyle choices and that to me should be in grade 8 and 9 not elementary school or kindergarten as Wynne wanted it to be.

Enough with sexualizing children. They can learn about their bodies without having to worry about sexual behaviour choices.

Our world of business which requires we sell products based on manipulating sexual feelings and insecurities is what has caused all this confusion and pressure on children. No expert is willing to discuss that because its common sense and because universities depend on those same businesses for funding. Experts bah. Give me Nurse Sue.

I did teach sexology once. Never again. The curriculum was ridiculous. I hold in high esteem nurses at Sick Kid's hospital and in medical clinics across Toronto and pediatricians and certain volunteers in women's shelters or certain people that work in children's aid as social workers and for that matter certain police. Their clinical or street training is what makes them experts. What makes them experts is they are non judgmental and they deal with the here and now.

I admit I have a different view on this. In one sense it is a very strong advocate of sex education but at the right time and with the right content. I never had an issue with Ford. He is not a prude. He certainly did not suck up to fundamentalist religious groups on this issue. Not his style. He was making an argument about what the content should be.

You and I do not disagree we need sex education just on what forms it should take and maybe at what age and even then you and I do not disagree. I just have a prejudice against myself and those in my field. Psychology of Law made me understand at best all we learn is an approximate attempt and it must always be challenged and we need to listen to the victims and the children and the people we lecture to and be prepared when people panic and resist discussing issues that make them uncomfortable to be like Nurse Sue-matter of fact, blunt but not alarming. Man she was good at talking down ignorance. She never raised her voice or judged anyone. Some of the comments I got in class made me want to cringe. People can and do bring very entrenched cultural and religious views with them and hide behind multi-culturalism to demand their views be imposed on others.

For example. I had a group of students complain I was inappropriate because I explained about sexual assault and common assault and explained the difference. They complained I talked about sex in the class. I was teaching the difference between criminal sexual assault and civil common assault and battery. The university told me not to upset them. I asked the school to come observe what I was teaching and they refused and did not provide me an example of how to teach sexual assault without upsetting people who don't want to hear about it. Universities today cater to whoever pays them cash and have taught students they get whatever they want when they pay cash. Since that means international students who pay cash we are told not to upset them, i.e., fail them, expect them to read or write or think critically. I am not being hired back at one university because I refused to not teach about this.

That is what happens. We faculty are all temporary now and told we are expendable if we upset students for any reason and I mean any reason. Education is so competitive now students call the shots at colleges and universities and what we have and I have taught at over 12, are not experts, but frightened faculty who avoid any meaningful, critical discussions for fear of upsetting students from cultures with different views than ours about crime, sexual behaviour, morality, religion.

Sorry but thinking the world of academia is going to help you is naive. Its compromised and as tainted politically as it gets.

I think that most of those idiots in academia have been playing leftist liberal hockey politics for far too long, and they appear to have fallen more than six times on their academia hockey heads. They keep playing and keep getting hockey academia sticks and pucks in the head. There are so many Canadians out there that appear to have been hit in the head with too many a hockey stick or puck, and are now too stunned to be able to think or are able to use any common sense or logic anymore. One has to watch it when one plays too much academia hockey? They may just get an academia hockey stick up the nose, eh? Lol.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Those who need these classes the most are the ones whowon't receive them. It's very bad for these children and very bad for their parents too, as they are seen as what they are; zealots.

The Muslims kids in Quebec "need most" the anti-religion classes only in your opinion.

You want them to be brainwashed by the the ultra-secularist government of the Quebec province into becoming they too the hedonist zombies you, the Quebecers-pure-laine are, i.e. people with no respect for and no knowledge of their own traditions, with no respect for their ethnicity, living aimless and barren lives by choosing to make no children.

Zealotry is also what you want to do to them, that is to force some normal people that help Quebec still keep kind of a human face by making beautiful babies, as your women pure laine bear no child at all, or, worse bear des-petits-mamadous.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

We all see it. This is why the "fear" that Muslims are dragging everyone back to the dark ages and changing our society for the worse is not a phobia - it's a legit fear.

There have been plenty of studies done about the benefits of having sex ed in school. The debate on this is over. But here we are debating it again. The same as we're once again debating women's place in society, abortion, segregation of genders, etc. Backwards, we're going backwards.

Maybe "the Muslims drag the society back to the dark ages". Fact is that this "back" and these "Dark Ages" are the normality of ANY human society that ever existed. One can deplore the stupidity and the toxicity of religious dogmas and the unfair character of many patriarchal rules (and I for one deplore it sincerely), but NO modern society (and in no case Canada) have succeeded in making a rationalist and a respectful society of the human rights, and in the same time being minimally functional: ALL modern societies need year after year to import MASSIVELY people provided by... "the unfair and the bigoted traditional societies".

As long as you still fail to find a solution to YOUR own dysfunctional society, in order to make and keep it time-resilient and sustainable demographically (which is the most basic feature), otherwise than taking other societies' pret-à-user humans, that they still KNOW how to make, keep silent !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you have a minimal morality and a minimal sens of fairness. let alone rationality. And let down your ridiculous superiority complex.

Share on other sites

The Muslims kids in Quebec "need most" the anti-religion classes only in your opinion.

You want them to be brainwashed by the the ultra-secularist government of the Quebec province into becoming they too the hedonist zombies you, the Quebecers-pure-laine are, i.e. people with no respect for and no knowledge of their own traditions, with no respect for their ethnicity, living aimless and barren lives by choosing to make no children.

Share on other sites

We still have freedom of religion - that's the issue. It's actually what defines our current democratic space. People don't think the government should deem your thoughts about metaphysics and harmless cultural practices illegal.

Sex education is more of a health issue. I don't think parents should be given the opportunity to opt out of the basic information. Banning religious education isn't politically viable, at a minimum.

It's not only a health issue, but is also very political and religious. We can not afford to have hundreds -soon to be thousands- of young Muslims not learning the codes of sexual relationships while the rest does. It's going to be an increasingly alarming problem, because ghettoization for religious groups is a serious issue. A house cannot stay up divided.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's not only a health issue, but is also very political and religious. We can not afford to have hundreds -soon to be thousands- of young Muslims not learning the codes of sexual relationships while the rest does. It's going to be an increasingly alarming problem, because ghettoization for religious groups is a serious issue. A house cannot stay up divided.

We have always had exemptions from classes for religious minorities. Notably, some evangelical Christian's don't allow their kids to participate in any Hallowe'en activities, nor Easter bunny/Easter egg, nor Santa/Rudolph ... secular activities around religious holidays.

Parents have, in majority, supported availability of sex education in public schools, but that does not mean it can be forced on religious minorities who prefer to do it themselves.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

What is more important is that the youth has equal opportunities to function in society. Having parents who are religious zealots doesn't mean children shouldn't have access to education.

What you want is to make a barren hedonist monster of ALL your fellow citizens. It doesn't work: by choice you can go down the history bin with nothing left behind, but others that happen to live here have their right too to keep their tradition that made them essential and indispensable for province economy and society. Factually religion is bullshit. Dogmas are stupid and of disheartening low moral level, and religion (any) brings unnecessarily stupid hatred and miserable lives for their followers. But if you are honest and not a full idiot you realize also that it is far better than secularism and democracy, because at least is able to make a community alive - making children (not looting others' societies people), valuing himself (and not self-hating to the point of wiping himself out racially in a generation or less) and its own culture and tradition, which for sure is no better and no worse than any other one.

Under the disguise of care for the others' children what you want to promote here is a culture of death, in which we ALL, collectively, go extinct for the sake of a failed ideology. Your are free to go extinct ! You almost succeeded, actually. And there is no loss for the others if you, the Quebecers de souche, go extinct, au contraire, but let others survive especially if they choose to. Religion has its role to play in a society.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yes I think the religious children must take classes and lessons that totally contradict their religions to receive good education. Be it Science, Philosophy, Literature.

You have to ask yourself what it is the final effect of your strive to educate people and make them thinking critically. You have more informed and smart people, yes, but in the same time you make them rabid individualists, anxious, barren and cynical. Half of the school children in Quebec have problems linked to anxiety !!!!!! And the fact that they cannot feel a community as long as the promoted ideology in schools and media is savage individualism and an obscene search of diversity for the sake of diversity, it is responsible for that sad situation. You killed catholicism and by doing that you killed yourself as a people. Now for the sake of that losing ideology you want to kill islam, making the Arabs barren as yourself. I do not agree with what you want to do.

Share on other sites

You have to ask yourself what it is the final effect of your strive to educate people and make them thinking critically. You have more informed and smart people, yes, but in the same time you make them rabid individualists, anxious, barren and cynical. Half of the school children in Quebec have problems linked to anxiety !!!!!! And the fact that they cannot feel a community as long as the promoted ideology in schools and media is savage individualism and an obscene search of diversity for the sake of diversity, it is responsible for that sad situation. You killed catholicism and by doing that you killed yourself as a people. Now for the sake of that losing ideology you want to kill islam, making the Arabs barren as yourself. I do not agree with what you want to do.

Please, you seem to dislike the secular West so much, so you need to go live in a strict religious Muslim country. You'll love it there!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Please, you seem to dislike the secular West so much, so you need to go live in a strict religious Muslim country. You'll love it there!

Bad conclusion...

Actually I like the secular West very much, but it happens that the West is no more the West, and today the Quebec is no more the Quebec in which I came to live 20 yrs ago. The Quebec government is so stupid or so incapable that it can attract only Africans (racially) to settle here, or at least in Montreal only Africans reproduce themselves enough to be visible. For that reason I prefer to protect the Arab muslims, because they happen to be the last human-faced community still breeding to some extent in Quebec. Let them alone!

As of its "secularist" character, I did like it VERY MUCH (I am an atheist, with atheists parents, now in an atheist family, so I am at ease in a laicist social context) for a long time actually, as long as I didn't realize yet that the secularism is RAPIDLY wiping out the population in Canada and in the West, letting me to live practically in a racially African country (or province). Don't jump to conclusions . . . I despise religion and I dislike the naïveté of the religious people, but if I am forced to choose between living in an African country which is democratic, rich and secularist and bla-bla-bla, or in a middle-age style, poor and religious country peopled by humans like me (euro-asian), I will chose to swallow aaaaall my anti-religious prejudice and live with people with human faces, not with muzzles.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

We have had this for a long time. Do you trust ignorant religious folks less lately or has this issue always been a concern?

The Quebecers de souche seem to be in a terrible hurry to get extinct, so much that they are concerned even about what lives live the religious people they import to replace them, and that already for a long time. Why just import once a batch of Muslim Arabs enough to redress the fertility of the province and make the business happy with that cheap workforce ? They prefer to make the immigrants in their image, i.e. barren, in order to import each year for ever, large masses of people to be digested by their death-prone and only death-generating society.

The Quebec government is so stupid or so incapable that it can attract only Africans (racially) to settle here, or at least in Montreal only Africans reproduce themselves enough to be visible. For that reason I prefer to protect the Arab muslims, because they happen to be the last human-faced community still breeding to some extent in Quebec. Let them alone!